User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-121.45.54.78-20130925110520/@comment-24048868-20200602052725: Difference between revisions
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I would look at cases such as Thatcher on an individual basis, rather than on a thread such as this one, since it would be asking the question of "who?" rather than the question of "is it an appearance?" Basically, my concern is that there isn't a way of saying '''this''' counts as an appearance while '''that''' doesn't in policy terms. In saying that, I don't want to be in total control of the table, however I also don't know how I'd add it. If you're still in favour of adding it, how and where would you put it? | I would look at cases such as Thatcher on an individual basis, rather than on a thread such as this one, since it would be asking the question of "who?" rather than the question of "is it an appearance?" Basically, my concern is that there isn't a way of saying '''this''' counts as an appearance while '''that''' doesn't in policy terms. In saying that, I don't want to be in total control of the table, however I also don't know how I'd add it. If you're still in favour of adding it, how and where would you put it? | ||
| Line 8: | Line 7: | ||
On the topic of a minor appearances page, I'm not sure I'd agree with having that. First of all, it's quite likely that some "minor" appearances will still be included on main appearances pages at the conclusion of this thread. Would we just have overlap there? The point of the hypothetical "references" page (''which may or may not be given that name'') is to cover what we ''don't'' count as an appearance. On such a page we could differentiate between verbal and visual references pretty easily, so I don't see a conflict there. | On the topic of a minor appearances page, I'm not sure I'd agree with having that. First of all, it's quite likely that some "minor" appearances will still be included on main appearances pages at the conclusion of this thread. Would we just have overlap there? The point of the hypothetical "references" page (''which may or may not be given that name'') is to cover what we ''don't'' count as an appearance. On such a page we could differentiate between verbal and visual references pretty easily, so I don't see a conflict there. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20130925110520-121.45.54.78/20200602052725-24048868]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 20:03, 27 April 2023
I would look at cases such as Thatcher on an individual basis, rather than on a thread such as this one, since it would be asking the question of "who?" rather than the question of "is it an appearance?" Basically, my concern is that there isn't a way of saying this counts as an appearance while that doesn't in policy terms. In saying that, I don't want to be in total control of the table, however I also don't know how I'd add it. If you're still in favour of adding it, how and where would you put it?
There is the mention of only a character's voice (add that to the table?) and recaps too. Currently recaps (e.g. the Fourth Doctor in Castrovalva are not considered appearances, but maybe they can be considered minor ones (or whatever we call them).
The first one is already covered by 1.3, and recaps are pretty much 2.3, by my reckoning. I have found that page useful though, and will add a few from there, such as corpse and expand photos to include other forms of still depictions, such as statues.
On the topic of a minor appearances page, I'm not sure I'd agree with having that. First of all, it's quite likely that some "minor" appearances will still be included on main appearances pages at the conclusion of this thread. Would we just have overlap there? The point of the hypothetical "references" page (which may or may not be given that name) is to cover what we don't count as an appearance. On such a page we could differentiate between verbal and visual references pretty easily, so I don't see a conflict there.
